Remember how I’ve been discussing the hallmarks of conspiracy culture? Well, according to Michael Barkun’s Culture of Conspiracy (2006), one of the most important markers of what separates a conspiracy theorist from your run of the mill zealous advocate of an unusual idea is the simultaneous rejection of mainstream academia while creating methods for appropriating its prestige and approval. The zealous advocate pushes his (and it’s almost always his) ideas through traditional channels and respects the foundations of scholarship (even if he is blind to his idea’s weaknesses), but the conspiracy theorist rejects the traditional channels and demands that his ideas be exempt from the types of review and scrutiny given to all others. Typically, this is due to a deep distrust of academia or the belief that there is a system-wide conspiracy designed to suppress the truth that the conspiracy theorist is somehow uniquely poised to reveal, if only the guardians of orthodoxy would let him.

This is a rather long way of saying that on his blog yesterday Scott Wolter has decided to expound on his beliefs about peer review, which he sees as riven with “territoriality, competition for funding, runaway egos, intimidation, threats of retribution, favoritism, and ordinary personal pique.” I will let the irony speak for itself. Most of Wolter’s blog post is devoted to complaints against Richard Nielsen, his onetime research partner, and it is not my place to involve myself in their interpersonal recriminations. (Disclosure: I have exchanged emails with Nielsen and discussed the Kensington Rune Stone with him even though I do not agree with all of his views.) Wolter also complains about Wikipedia for being overrun with skeptics. At the beginning and end, however, he briefly addresses his putative subject, academic peer review, which he does not seem to fully understand. According to Wolter, peer review is considered a sacrament of academia, a magical process whereby the bread and wine of research are converted through priestly blessing into the body and blood of Truth. That’s not me exaggerating Wolter’s ignorance of what “peer review” means. It’s what he honestly believes:

If this review process is so perfect, then why has it not been able to accurately answer the question of the authenticity of the Kensington Rune Stone, Bat Creek Stone, Spirit Pond Rune Stones, the Newport Tower, and Tucson Lead Artifacts? The fact is academic peer review and publishing process has failed miserably. Further, defenders of the “faith” refuse to look inward and take a critical look of their sacred process to try and figure out what went wrong. Instead, they turn a blind eye to obvious failures, dig their heels in and attack those who dare to question.

How does one even begin to address such ignorance? Peer review doesn’t determine “truth”; it is designed to evaluate whether a researcher has followed proper academic protocols (and sufficiently described them) and therefore whether an article is worthy of publication. Publication does not establish a claim as true; indeed, you can and do find peer-reviewed articles, sometimes in the very same issues of academic journals, that take wildly opposing views on the same subject—yet they have all passed peer review. Consider the “Jesus’ Wife” papyrus flap ongoing right now; articles both for and against its authenticity can be found in the current Harvard Theological Review, a peer-reviewed journal. Yet if Wolter were right, this simply should not be since the fragment contradicts his straw man version of academic dogma, and the differing opinions “dare to question.” All of the subjects Wolter mentioned above have been the subject of peer-reviewed articles, some many times over. These articles have presented compelling evidence for why each of these “mysterious” objects, artifacts, and buildings are not what Scott Wolter claims them to be. His problem seems to be that he doesn’t like the answers scholars come up with and therefore concludes that peer review is suppressing alternative views. He therefore again reiterates his belief that his work has been “peer-reviewed” in a different way because he is a professional geologist. He claims that as a professional his work receives review from fellow geologists, but he provides no evidence of which peers have endorsed his views on Templar conspiracies, where his findings on specific artifacts have been published, etc. Nor does he explain how geologists reviewing his work on concrete, or even the age of rocks, speaks in any way toward his interpretation of said rocks to support a world-historical conspiracy involving thousands of years of suppressed truth about the hidden line of goddess worshipers who run the world in secret; even if he is right on all the geology, this does not imply that his interpretations of history are necessarily correct, or even coherent. He purposely conflates his geology (which has its own problems) with his grand conspiracy theory as though they were one and the same. It’s akin to asking a botanist to explain the Dutch tulip mania of 1637; yes, it involves flowers, but classifying the bulbs will only take you so far.

I’m really tired of listening to “academic” bloggers and Amazon power-trippers using arrogant posturing and name-calling trying to claim sovereignty over scientific method and the peer review process. Instead, we would all appreciate it if these people would stop trying to dictate what they think is proper scientific method and start practicing it.

If I may extend Wolter’s earlier hierophantic metaphor a bit, thus is the hoc est enim corpus meum of the priests transformed into the hocus pocus of the wizard standing before the cathedral doors, proclaiming that his mystery is the real way and the truth. Thus does Wolter declare ex cathedra that opposition to his conclusions is little more than “faith” (“If you don’t ‘believe’ they are genuine, then be happy in your ‘faith’…”) while he is the true hierophant of knowledge, possessor of the one true peer review, and the practitioner of the purest science. He speaks rather like Martin Luther nailing the 95 Theses to the cathedral door, proclaiming a reformation, except that Martin Luther had first been in the Church before he condemned it and knew whereof he spoke.

Academia is misunderstood generally in America today. How peer review works, the reason for tenure, processes of research, work loads, promotion, reasons for conferences/collaboration, processes of publication (articles and books), etc. Misconceptions are only enhanced by the anti-intellectualism that is found among many people. It's both disconcerting and sad.

Reply

Graham

4/13/2014 02:59:54 pm

There is a good primer on peer review (at least as it applies to journal publication and NASA grants) on the Exposing PseudoAstronomy podcast:

http://podcast.sjrdesign.net/shownotes_093.php

The take-away is that like democracy, peer review is not perfect, but, it is the best system available.

I actually do a lot of peer reviewing for both economic and other publications and honestly I quite often disagree with the findings of the articles. When I disagree I put it in my notes to the authors (these can get quite snarky as those of us who publish know) but i would never base my recommendation to accept or not on the results of the study.

I do have to admit that I recommend to reject publication almost 80 percent of the time. This is either because the study was improperly constructed since economists like to use fancy fluffed up models that usually don't work with the crappy data that they have, or as is more often the case, the "research" really does not say much.

I don't know how it works in history or archaeology journals, but correct or not, a paper based on an anecdote or on a single data point just would not cut it in an economic or statistical journal.

In other words, Scott Wolter could be 100 percent correct about alien Templar neolithic explorers coming to America, but the evidence is so slim that any paper could not make it into a peer reviewed publication.

Dave Lewis

4/14/2014 09:43:51 am

Thanks for posting the explanation of peer review!

Titus pullo

4/14/2014 12:17:26 pm

John,

Given most of macroeconomics is garbage, I.e. Keynesian delusions using math, I understand your rejection rate.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/14/2014 02:43:31 pm

And sometimes articles are submitted the are simply flat-out deliberately BOGUS, yet are accepted for publication …

see, e.g.: Alan Sokal ...

Enon

4/15/2014 12:33:37 am

I usually skip right past anything written by the Revolting Phil, but somehow this bit about Sokal caught my eye. In his typical fashion, Phil is again bringing up something that has very little, if anything, to do with the argument in an attempt to obfuscate rather than enlighten.

The paper Sokal submitted, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", was INTENDED to be a hoax to test the standards of publishing scholarly papers. It was submitted to a publication called "Social Text" precisely because it DID NOT USE THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS at the time (1996).

Thus this is not an example of how Peer Review failed, but rather of why there is Peer Review in the first place.

Nice try Phil.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/15/2014 11:32:26 am

Sokal is NOT the sole investigator of the problem …

There have been more recent instances in which PRESTIGIOUS peer-reviewed journals accepted for publication articles or reports that were DELIBERATELY bogus ...

Only Me

4/15/2014 11:54:53 am

Examples of these "recent instances", please. Otherwise, what you say is more anecdotal smoke and mirrors.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/15/2014 02:22:21 pm

Do your own homework, Kitten ...

Only Me

4/15/2014 02:50:13 pm

You made the claim, sweetheart, so either prove it or stop wasting blog space.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/15/2014 03:24:09 pm

"Only Me" --

This is BASIC stuff … Do your own homework -- or not … If you just follow-up on the Google leads re: Sokal, there are more event episodes …

Some stuff gets published in error; some gets turned away wrongly …

Only Me

4/15/2014 03:54:42 pm

Thank you. Now, was that so hard? I've asked you to do this very thing before (twice during our Clovis discussion), but since you didn't reply, I thought I'd try again.

Remember, Phil, you may have a genuine argument, but some (like me) would like to know more. That's the reason for the request.

Lighten up, meow! : )

Walt

4/13/2014 10:11:54 am

I don't disagree with his opinion of academia as it relates to egos and the politics of getting projects funded, but that's just them doing what it takes to get by in today's world. That doesn't mean they lack the professional ethics required to consider alternate ideas when presented with evidence. I'm cynical enough to question their motives, but not their ethics.

Reply

Heidi

4/13/2014 06:42:20 pm

I will agree with you there Walt, academia is a business like any other and education at any level is subject to witch hunts.

Witch hunts & conspiracy of silence to prevent what?,the general public to acknowledge the Knights Templar secret journey to America,& secret goddess worshiping ?.This is ridiculous,you don't have a clue about peer reviewing.How many academics do you personally know?.Have you ever been through academic peer reviewing process?.
You cannot blame "pesky academics" for refusing to take Scott Wolter seriously.Scott violates the most basic principles of scientific methodology on regular base.
I am not even mentioning his association with lunatics & crackpots like Alan Butler & Co,because guilt by association is an easy shot.

Titus pullo

4/14/2014 12:23:10 pm

Tara,

I have been through peer review albeit a long time ago when I worked in inertial laser fusion research, most of the time it is affair process but sometimes you do get the crowd mentality in that you are challenging the conventional wisdom and it becomes more about not liking your conclusions regardless of your design of experiment and methods. I would suggest anyone challenging say a global warming model in APS would have a higher barrier for publication. That said I'm not sure what Mr. Wolter is complaining about. Has he been refused publication?

The crowd mentality (what I call the museum or bunker mentality)is a factor,there is no question about it,but this is part of the process (submitting yourself to criticism & professional evaluation).I personally have been through it and also done it myself (and I show no mercy).

Last year I went through an extensive debate with Dan Kaszeta (CBRN specialist)over the Ghouta sarin attack.I criticized his approach by doing a rigorous forensic analysis of the incident.Despite the fact that Dan & myself reached the exact opposite conclusion,we went through a civil & non emotional technical debate, & we learned a lot from each other.The individuals who chastise academic peer review,usually don't have what it takes to submit themselves to professional evaluation, & they know they wouldn't past the litmus test.It is more easy & convenient to complain & whine,than to give it a try

I am done going after Scott Wolter,because objectively criticizing him only reinforces his sentiment of "being persecuted".Scott is not ready to go through academic peer reviewing.I have the feeling he will never be.Although,I have to give him credit for the courtesy he expressed when we interacted on his blog (Scott knew who I was & despite of the fact that through my criticisms towards him,I personally crossed the line on many occasions on Jason`s blog) Scott was very respectful and willing to listen and argue.

Varika

4/15/2014 11:38:17 am

Tara, neither Heidi nor Walt said that PEER REVIEW was a witch hunt, only that academia is as subject to the phenomenon as anywhere else. It is a statement that is not untrue, though from what I have seen, it seldom if ever takes the form of using peer review. Usually, the witch hunts take the form of threats to revoke funding if certain projects or research is pursued. They also tend to be limited in location to a single university or laboratory.

The thing that hasn't been mentioned is that witch hunts are incredibly RARE, in any sphere. You're far, far, FAR more likely to be denied funding for your research because your idea won't lead to the university or lab making money than you are because the idea is verboten--and that's assuming that your idea is actually worth researching in the first place, which, well, as we can tell, not all of them ARE.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/13/2014 10:50:43 am

For sure, anyone who has been an active participant in ANY human institution --

"the academy," a corporation, an organized society or association, a sports league, a religious faith community institution, a community organization, a political party, etc., etc. --

KNOWS that human foibles and frailties are inevitably in*the*mix, with many sadly negative factors interplaying (jealousy, aggression, arrogance, ignorance, vain ambition, egotism, etc.) along WITH many high ideals …

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/13/2014 11:04:51 am

But, yes … WITHIN "the academy" there indeed are not uncommonly ongoing "turf battles" and even ideological tussles …

I remember (NOT fondly) the fight between the late Prof. Dr. Stephen J. Gould and Prof. Dr. E. O. Wilson (both at Harvard University) following publication of Wilson's ground-breaking work, "Sociobiology" … It was … UNSEEMLY … and unfortunately, Prof. Gould did NOT acquit himself well …

And remind us which one was able to wield peer review to suppress the ideas of the other...

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/13/2014 11:25:16 am

Prof. Dr. Gould WANTED to suppress Wilson's work … but he was unable to do so … He thought that Wilson's "sociobiology" was ideologically DANGEROUS, in that he feared that it COULD be misused by "Nazi" (!!!) folks for ugly racialist purposes ...

Matt Mc

4/13/2014 01:59:25 pm

So two academics disagreed in a what seems to be a distasteful way but nothing was suppressed. So how does this demonstrate that peer reviews are flawed?

All it does is demonstrate that within academia people have differing opinions and can be very passionate and childish about stating their opinions, something which is present in fields way beyond academia or natural sciences, in fact it is the heartbeat of politics and sports commentary. Lets face it adults are very childish and unprofessional a lot of the time when addressing critics and disagreements.

Still do not see how this addresses peer review.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/13/2014 05:00:26 pm

I closely followed the *dust*up* between Gould and Wilson … Gould's "take" on ("peer review" of) Wilson's work WAS flawed …

Does that mean that ALL "peer review" is similarly flawed … ??? Of course not … Does it vividly illustrate the fact that "peer review" is NO perfect magic bullet … ??? Yes ...

Matt Mc

4/14/2014 01:12:22 am

Again how does you story relate to how and why Wolter misunderstands what a peer review is and his unwillingness to pursue one. I personally think that if his geology is correct in dating the stones a peer review will help bring more attention and research to his claims.

I should also be noted that his work on the KRS has not been submitted to a peer review and based on the information the Nielson has not shared his data his also has not been submitted to a peer review.

Harry

4/14/2014 01:58:43 am

Phil,

It is clear that that there was no love lost between Gould and Wilson, and Gould sharply criticized Wilson's work. However, that is not suppression; it is academic debate. I am not convinced that you understand the difference or that you are fairly describing Gould's position.

Can you describe more specifically how Gould attempted to suppress Wilson's work, particularly any instance in which he attempted to use peer review to achieve that aim? And do you have any sources or evidence to back up that claim?

If you choose to do your usual dance of nonsense instead of answering at least the first question forthrightly, I will know that I can safely reject your assertion and save myself the wasted effort of debating or investigating it.

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/14/2014 04:51:54 am

Gould not only rejected and roundly criticized Wilson's "sociobiology," he went on to denounce it as ideologically DANGEROUS, as it could be used for evil purposes … He not only argued against Wilson's work, but denounced him for having published it ...

Thinking of Jung + Freud, i am... (j.a.d)

4/14/2014 05:33:09 am

We all saw how the late 1800s corrupted Charles Darwin's ideas...
DNA strings + Genetics has upended the grand Linnaeus system...
i like S.J. Gould's ideas but i admire Wilson's ecosphere approach...

Harry

4/14/2014 06:29:57 am

Phil,

Thanks. That may be strong, and it might be an overreaction, but it has nothing to do with academic peer review and does not necessarily mean that Gould wanted to SUPPRESS Wilson's work.

There are plenty of doctrines I think are dangerous, but which I do not believe should be suppressed, because I support the First Amendment. That does not mean that I feel I mustn't denounce them. The First Amendment also protects the right to denounce.

Titus pullo

4/14/2014 12:26:32 pm

I lost a lot of respect for Gould when he left his area and started to pontificate on economics. He never quite got the spontaneous order concept of human actions.

From Jason: "All of the subjects Wolter mentioned above have been the subject of peer-reviewed articles, some many times over. These articles have presented compelling evidence for why each of these “mysterious” objects, artifacts, and buildings are not what Scott Wolter claims them to be. His problem seems to be that he doesn’t like the answers scholars come up with and therefore concludes that peer review is suppressing alternative views."

Well, like Wolter, I'm surprised by how one-sided even Wikipedia is on the Kensington Runestone. In fact, I have pointed this out myself, rather publicly. But Wikipedia means nothing, right? Not at all a reliable peer review, right? And this is as it should be, since it is, in fact, so one-sided...and protected from re-wording.

There are many kinds of peer review. And many peer reviews are just plain wrong in their conclusions. An example is how an early concept of stoneholes was peer reviewed falsely, incorrectly...and the false implications are being carried forward to today: Scandinavians are being falsely portrayed as having TERRIBLE memories when it came to not remembering to blast all these stoneholes! Okay, so much for the just plain dumb peer review.

What has peer review done for the KRS? Well, over the past hundred years or so, a few had it right and many had it wrong...yet here is that reversal--when in reality, it takes a certain amount of faith to disbelieve in the KRS. In that regard, yes, hidebound visitors to this blog have to have a certain amount of faith to disbelieve in the KRS. However, without faith even being an issue, I see the merits in believing in its authenticity. I require no faith to see its genuineness, only the insight to see the accumulation of "non-provenance" evidences making it real.

I don't like the answers "scholars" have come up with, either, concerning the KRS. To me, it requires a lot of faith for the current State of MN Archaelogist to believe no Europeans came to this area before the 1600's French. See, some kinds of peer review are very obviously distracting us from the truth. I was surprised to learn from the blog host that peer reviews aren't meant to reveal truth. I thought peer reviews are supposed to be based on facts and science, and that they are to hopefully come to a better understanding of truth in some way. Unless academics peer review inconsequential subjects, and their output is immaterial. What good are peer reviews in history if they aren't designed to reveal some truth, or at least some insight leading in a supposedly truthful direction?

I must agree with Wolter that there is an inherent problem with the system. I guess maybe it comes across to him as a conspiracy, while I look at it as a jumble of misinformed people trying to make sense of what is obvious--at least in the case of the KRS. Again, it takes a certain amount of faith to not believe in the KRS, stoneholes, far inland water-ways, etc. I'm glad I'm on the right side in determining the value of the KRS. Eventually, it will become an embarrassment to those who had sufficient faith to not believe in it.

Bottom Line: "professional" peer review can be damaging, even without a conspiracy, as in the case of the memorial Kensington Runestone. Wolter is right about artifacts having inscribed hooked X's, in my opinion.

Reply

Mandalore

4/13/2014 11:44:37 am

You are wrong about what you think peer review is. It is not an evaluation of the idea, but the evidence and argument that support it. Ideas that lack exhaustive evidence that is structured into a logical and coherent argument will not be approved in scholarly journals. Contradictory and innovative ideas are published all the time. Peer review is the process, not evaluation. You are seeing conspiracies where none exist.

Reply

Gunn Sinclair

4/14/2014 06:33:56 am

Mandalore, I just said, above that I do not see a conspiracy. Here: "I must agree with Wolter that there is an inherent problem with the system. I guess maybe it comes across to him as a conspiracy, while I look at it as a jumble of misinformed people trying to make sense of what is obvious--at least in the case of the KRS."

Also, I think most people here see that there are different kinds of peer review. You--and the host, too--can be very straight-jacketed in your definitions, but the fact is that there are different kinds of peer review. I said before that even this blog is a form of peer review. As Rev. Phil has said just recently, after a published peer review is issued, another form of peer review takes place. Let's not be so quick to straight-jacket the term "peer review."

I see your point of the most exquisite, pure-form peer review, in one exact, narrow definition. Perhaps you and others would be willing to extend, momentarily, the parameters of what peer review means in your mind.

Also, there is that evasive issue of "truth" to consider, even though a few here seem to want that subject to be elusive, too, when considering peer reviews.

Again, my point is that there is CERTAINLY more than one kind of peer review. Other forms of peer reviews often present valid points, too, in the process.

As Rev. Phil might say, Mandalore, you need to lighten up. As I might say, you seem to be constipated.

Mandalore

4/14/2014 07:19:41 am

Why is it that you feel the need to make personal insults to people who offer you none? I have never once said anything about you, but you have repeatedly felt the need to attack me on a personal level. I am unable to decide if it is because you cannot make a sustained argument when even slightly questioned or because you can hide behind the internet.

FYI: I am done with this 'conversation', so feel free to continue to insult me, as is your wont, with impunity.

Okay, Mandalore, yes indeed, we have come to the subject of your rather purposeful insults to me, which you see as a one-sided insult to you. In essence, you manage to show up to be disagreeable to my comments, which I guess you don't see as insulting. You like to show up to say, "Gunn, you're wrong." When you manage to do this more than once, it becomes in my mind an annoying habit. For instance, I said Gunn see's no conspiracy, then you come aboard to say Gunn DOES see a conspiracy. You see the problem?

You said: "I am unable to decide if it is because you cannot make a sustained argument when even slightly questioned or because you can hide behind the internet."

You are limiting the choices, Mandalore. See how you presented me and the blog-o-sphere with two negative choices only. You may certainly question me on a sustained argument. We can go on and on and on, if it's your desire to learn something new, instead of coming here SEEMING to be constipated. It can make one cranky, I suppose, and feel like lashing out...and "intellectual subtlety" dosen't help much with someone like me who specializes in reading between lines.

Next, I'm not hiding behind the internet. You can click right now on the arrow by my name and see my rather pitiable website, which has free information about the KRS, stoneholes and such. You may also see a picture or two of me (look for a handsome man) and a contact email address. My real name is there. By the way, who is Mandalore? I thought at first it was a woman's name, for some reason.

Anyway, yes, please take your "academic prudence" in a direction away from me. You can't make the KRS disappear by trying to pigeon-hole a narrow definition of peer review...the kind of peer review which would best serve to crush any fringe or alternative history viewpoints. I think you're purposely setting the peer review bar too high, for nefarious reasons. I hope the blog host isn't doing the same thing, since his blog here is also a well-known platform for so-called peer review.

In the end, we don't want to give the professionals too much credit. Look how wrong they were and still are about the KRS.

By the way, I would like someone to independently explain Neilsen's actual view of the KRS. If I am not mistaken, he allows room for potential authenticity, in spite of disagreements with Wolter. Who then, is to better represent the KRS, Wolter or Neilsen, or both? Reading between the lines, it's an on-going struggle. Maybe peer review will help. Maybe not, too. I guess it may even depend on what kind of peer review we're talking about.

Walt

4/13/2014 11:57:00 am

The biggest problem with his work on the KRS is it goes beyond his profession. He's a professional geologist, but he taught himself about runes and runestones. That makes him an amateur on runestone land claims. Amateurs, who I guess fall into the "zealous advocate" category Jason referenced, can also use peer review, even if not in a journal. It involves respecting those in the field and carefully considering critiques of your work. Wolter can't seem to separate his professional work from his amateur work. If the geology says the KRS was created in the 14th century, but academics say it's a 19th century hoax, that's interesting enough! His paper on the subject does stop there, but his TV show, books, and radio appearances mix in his amateur opinion on the subject. He should focus on getting geologists to concur with his findings on the age of the KRS, then let the discussion about what it means follow.

Reply

JJ

4/13/2014 11:49:48 am

interested on your paragraph where you stepped, then side stepped on your communications with Nielsen. as a reader of your blog, there were times when your writing seemed to reflect this. How much of Nielsen's opinion on Wolter 'worked for you'?

I try very hard to minimize my contact with people who have strong opinions on subjects before I've formed my own views. I only spoke with Nielsen a couple of times, and this was at his request after I had already begun publishing my reviews of America Unearthed. Frankly, their interpersonal disputes are none of my business and aren't relevant to evaluating their respective ideas except insofar as it colors their views.

Reply

JJ

4/13/2014 01:30:29 pm

yes, their dispute is not helpful to any that enter into it. Interesting that Nielsen contacted you after hearing/seeing/reading your reviews..

KRS RUBBISH

4/13/2014 12:19:32 pm

THE KRS IS AN OBVIOUS FAKE
TRASH CAN MATERIAL
BUNK

Reply

Just Sayin"

4/13/2014 01:49:29 pm

Science and the scientific process is asking a question(s) and then attempting to answer that question(s) through research, experimentation, and the collection of data and facts. Negative data is just as important to the scientific process as positive data.

When you start with an answer, and then try to prove that the answer is correct, it is not science.

Just Sayin'

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/13/2014 03:25:29 pm

Yes … Ironically, the "de-bunking" and "skeptical" mind set ISN'T "scientific" as it BEGINS with a prejudicial view ...

Reply

Matt Mc

4/13/2014 03:32:31 pm

Again how does this related to Peer Review?

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/13/2014 03:34:59 pm

Exactly my point ...

Matt Mc

4/13/2014 03:48:03 pm

so your point is that Wolter cannot distinguish between Peer review and skeptics and debunkers.

Just Sayin'

4/13/2014 03:49:38 pm

"Again how does this related to Peer Review?"

A peer review is part of the scientific process. If science is not involved, it is not a peer review. Probably more akin to a parole review.

Just Sayin'

Matt Mc

4/13/2014 03:55:57 pm

I understand what Peer Review is, I did not understand how Revs statement reflected on the subject at hand, no one mentioned Skeptics and Debunkers. So I wanted to understand what he was getting at beyond making a childish jab.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/13/2014 04:26:59 pm

My post about "de-bunking"-"skeptic" mind set was in response to the post by "Just Sayin'" (above) ...

Just Sayin'

4/13/2014 04:58:45 pm

The point of my original post is that, in my humble opinion, fringe history is not science, nor should it be construed as science. Science is based on truths, supported by facts. Fringe history is based on beliefs, backed by theories. There are many uber-smart posters on this blog, of which with I cannot compete, but one thing is sure...... let's not confuse the issue by throwing around words like "de-bunkers" and "skeptics". Those titles have no purpose in science.

Just Sayin'

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/13/2014 05:05:56 pm

Exactly …

"Science" is about the careful systematic observation and investigation of facts -- processes and phenomena … It ISN'T about skepticism or de-bunking or cozying up to a department chair person or a grant provider or a reviewer …

What is the evidence at hand … ??? What do we make of it … ??? What might it mean … ??? What further questions and directions are suggested … ??? It's like that ...

Again how does this relate to the subject at hand which is Wolters unwillingness to submit his work to a peer review and his general misunderstanding as to what a peer review truly is?

Bryant Lister

4/14/2014 02:24:30 pm

Skepticism is questioning. Skeptics don't accept things for fact without adequate evidence and rational reasoning. What makes you claim that it is prejudicial and not scientific?

heidi

4/13/2014 03:00:09 pm

One word: Democracy

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/13/2014 04:38:20 pm

"Peer review" is by definition performed by one's PEERS … It is about taking one's findings to a community for discussion and review … It is indeed inherently "democratic" -- NOT aristocratic or hierarchical … It is about hashing stuff out in a group that already understands the terminology and the processes and the history …

It is NOT about amateur armchair self-appointed "experts" taking anonymous snarky potshots in an internet chat room ...

And while I am on this subject Phil, it is UNSURPRISING to me, that when 'decentering the subject' comes up in academic databases in relation to political science, that this derivative of French philosophy is said to be representative of conservative intellectualism and not a product of the left, but then again, it's not for nothing that the metaphor of 'the alien' is pinned by conspiracy theorists on Europeans now is it?

heidi

4/13/2014 06:53:49 pm

God forbid we stick to the historical facts of philosophical schools of thought, politics in education and any discussion of orientalism, 'the other' and it' relation to out groups or heaven forbid, queer theory.

heidi

4/13/2014 06:58:32 pm

http://youtu.be/FZDcaYsBN_4

Heidi

4/13/2014 11:21:22 pm

What would you rather discuss Reverend Phil when it comes to the metaphor of the 'alien' rather than liberal academic philosophy? Nietzsche and individuals PERCEIVED threat to Christianity or the view that secularism is just another form of Islam? http://youtu.be/aVVURiaVgG8 and the first line in this video:http://youtu.be/x9B3YsHfas0

Heidi Carter

4/13/2014 11:25:36 pm

That is my two cents Phil based on my own insight, interests, research and personal experience...after all, you are a Reverend as you went to pains to point out when you signed your comment thread...

Heidi

4/13/2014 11:35:50 pm

Don't worry Phil. God forbid we talk about politics or the deconstruction of Ontology in academia or by those well meaning arm chair, self appointed experts masquerading as anti Semites...

Phil, "peer review" refers to the editor of a journal sending an anonymous copy of a draft article to a several scholars for anonymous review to evaluate whether it meets minimal quality requirements before publishing it. The three (usually) referees don't know who else received it, and they don't speak to one another, so they can't conspire or even discuss. You are referring to academic discourse, which occurs after publication.

Heidi

4/13/2014 11:54:52 pm

I was referring to a positive view of Democracy as a synonym for intellectual liberty. Politics and getting published can be a challenge and it's not like there is NO TRUTH at all to the criticism Wolter makes. That is the flip side to using 'democracy' to both support and oppose.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/14/2014 04:54:06 am

Heidi --

LOL … I'm not sure what Jacques Derrida would have thought or said about this stuff ...

Heidi

4/14/2014 12:54:04 pm

Two Words: Provincial Agrarians! Be well Phil...

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/17/2014 04:41:22 am

Well, yeah …

One of the greatest ideological ironies of all time is that Marxist revolutions came about NOT in modern industrial-capitalist societies as Karl and Fred had expected, but in agrarian peasant societies ...

Only Me

4/13/2014 06:11:43 pm

So, once again, a thread is nearly overtaken with Philibustering.

Phil uses the vindictive actions of *one man* to make the case that the peer review process, in toto, suppresses ideas and is flawed.

This is followed by him defining both science and peer review after they were already defined by Jason and Just Sayin'.

We are treated, yet again, to the assertion that skepticism is a form of prejudice. Explain, Phil, how fringe ideas are *not* also prejudiced. I'll make it easy for you, using your own framework:

Ironically, the "alternative history" and "conspiratorial" mindset ISN'T "scientific", as it BEGINS with a prejudicial view...

Reply

Walt

4/13/2014 07:04:04 pm

It's important to remember what Wolter says started it all. When he initially completed his work on the KRS, it was entirely scientific in his opinion. He had no opinion at all about what the contents of the stone meant, nor did he support any fringe beliefs. He submitted a scientific report covering only his opinion of the forensic geology of the stone, and academics dismissed his scientific work because it didn't agree with what they believed, that it was a 19th century hoax. That's a prejudicial view by any definition. That one incident is what inspired him to learn about runes and runestones, and dismiss academia.

A better reaction would've been to engage academia and other forensic geologists to reach a consensus, but since academics with no background in his field dismissed his professional work, I can understand how he considers them a joke.

Reply

Only Me

4/13/2014 07:35:36 pm

True. But remember, Walt, those that disagreed with him did so on many fronts, including what was available and known about the linguistics, the stone's discovery, the alleged deathbed confession of it being a hoax, the lack of other artifacts where it was found, etc.
Much more has been learned since then, which is why the subject remains hotly debated.

Wolter is equally guilty of disagreeing with mainstream opinion, so that can also be seen as prejudicial. See, he has no background in archaeology, anthropology or astronomy and has no problem dismissing the work of those who specialize in those fields; hence, the reason why they consider *him* a joke.

What we have is a two-edged sword of behavior that cuts both ways. I can't accept that the mindset of debunkers and skeptics is a form of prejudice, while the mindset of alternative historians and conspiracists is not. Either all parties are guilty, or, they aren't.

Walt

4/13/2014 08:39:55 pm

I agree. His scientific results went against so many things, those without a "forensic geology" background dismissed it. Frankly, It's hard for me to put much credence in his amateur findings, such as the meaning of runes, when he doesn't seem to have much professional support for his scientific findings. I'm waiting to hear a dozen forensic geologists support his position on the age of any artifact before I even consider believing the rest.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/14/2014 03:08:36 am

No … I don't see the "peer review" process as inherent "flawed," but certainly as inherently HUMAN …

And yes, I do understand "peer review" in terms of publication in a professional journal … And following publication, one's peers review the published material and may or may not try to replicate … It's like making beer or wine -- it's a process of multiple steps and it takes time … and it's not a casual pursuit ...

Reply

JJ

4/13/2014 11:53:16 pm

Jason, if I understand your article, it says that a board or group of geologists did review his work. Did you or anyone here actually go to them and ask what they found? *this deals with the age dating of the Kensington Runestone*. I know this does not meet your criteria of peer review, but it would be a start as to their findings.

No, they didn't. As I understand it--and I am not a professional geologist--geologists often sign off on one another's reports, and this occurred with Wolter's concrete stability work. This has not, so far as Wolter has ever revealed, occurred with his fringe history work.

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/14/2014 04:33:41 am

Again …

The "America Unearthed" H2 TV shows are commercially produced for commercial distribution in order to attract a viewing audience to (peer) (re)view the paid adverts …

It ISN'T of the same character and quality as, say, "NOVA" or "Frontline" ...

Matt Mc

4/14/2014 05:00:47 am

What is in questions is not Wolters work on AU the TV show, but rather his work on the KRS ect.

You have still yet to say how your comments are relating to Wolters refusal to submit his work and processes to peer review or his misunderstanding of the peer review process.

Like I mentioned before peer review could help Wolters research into the KRS to taken more seriously and could lead to more examinations and studies but without him presenting his finding and methodologies to a peer review he is hindering his overall quest. Instead he is choosing to be a "character" on TV riding the current popular wave of fringe TV shows instead of doing the "hard science" that he claims.

So please Rev, address how AU being a TV show has any relation to Wolters refusal to submit to Peer Review process, his lack of understand what a peer review is, and how it furthers his claimed goal of having more people do serious research into the KRS and other like stones?

Walt

4/14/2014 05:37:23 am

I have lower standards than the professionals here, but I don't even care if his scientific work is peer reviewed. He can call his own geologist friends and have them blog about his KRS findings for all I care, or even appear on his own show. Just find some geologists who are willing to state in their own name that they agree that the KRS cannot be an 18th century hoax.

JJ

4/14/2014 06:22:26 am

you are talking 'fringe history' in what you just wrote- I was talking the geology work Wolter did do on the KRS-- there was a review of that work. Have you talked to the people who did that review of his geology work on the KRS?

As I understand it, Wolter showed his KRS findings to a few emeritus geology professors informally, which is his version of peer review, but so far as I can find none has publicly agreed with his conclusions.

RLewis

4/14/2014 03:00:49 am

It's clear that the Conspiracy Theorists are confused about peer review. They believe the "peers" are reviewing (and suppressing) the content and not just the process.
When Building Inspectors examine new houses under construction, they are only looking at the process of how it is being built. They do not consider (or care about) the layout, usefulness, or general aesthetics of the final complete structure.

Reply

JJ

4/14/2014 09:54:05 am

here it would be best to actually quote these professors- to do an honest inquiry of them... to say "As I understand it" leaves me hanging to know if you would or really would not go to find out the truth.

You can't quote people whose names you don't know. No geologist is on record as supporting the findings, and Wolter hasn't shared whoever these "peers" who reviewed his work are. That's on him.

JJ

4/15/2014 01:07:30 am

Jason, to be fair I did some work, went into Wolter's books and material- people are listed. I have seen you go far into finding info when you want to... this would, even for the smallest part, go a long ways in showing intent to show all angles.

Mark L

4/15/2014 02:30:38 am

Could you give us those names of the people who've publicly agrees with him then, JJ?

JJ

4/15/2014 03:46:15 am

what I am going for now, is the report of the geologists he submitted his KRS work to....you can do this, I can do this, Jason knows how to do this. I do this to find out the truth..Brian, i guess I was a bit surprised by you putting in another request- the ones who agree with him--- I was not looking for that- I am looking to how they evaluated his work, wouldn't you go about it that way, too?

The point, JJ, is that there are no published materials documenting the reactions, and no published reports. You see, we keep running up against a wall: There is Wolter's book, but that's about as far as we can go.

I can try to contact those still living, but there is no guarantee they will respond.

JJ

4/15/2014 06:02:06 am

so far, I have spoken to C. Matsch...still working on more..sometimes I feel like saying, 'come on you guys if you want the info, dig for it!' There is a report- who here will work to actually read it for content?

PEER REVIEW AND ISAAC NEWTON...

4/14/2014 03:35:24 am

Robert Hooke was the president of the Royal Society and an
expert on light. When young Isaac Newton tries to get a paper
publish'd, Hooke was all over it. GoTo Fox's Tv series Cosmos!
The Principia needed a good prodding by Edmund Halley and
an outlay of cash to find an adequate printer's ink. SW is not
a total fool, merely questing & speculating. Science needs to
be flexible enough to lay out all experimental hypotheses, as
we define the way reality is. If a group becomes 2 esoterically
"incestuous" we see something like PILTDOWN MAN lingering
on past its rather sad hour. Jason Colavito runs a way cool blog,
not a major dep't inside one of our better universities, lets keep
ourselves civil as we hash this all over. Edu*tain!ment ain't quite
where NOVA is at, it is the crystaliZation of all that is highbrow,
i concede to Rev. Phil the debating point factoid that H2 or Hist1
is MIDDLE*BROW as an academic endeavor, becuz when it is
performing a valuable function, it is like YESTERYEAR's Readers
Digest. It can be informative, but it is often speculation + opines.

Reply

Matt Mc

4/14/2014 03:43:57 am

Again I ask how does this relate to the topic at hand which is Wolters refusal to submit his work to Peer Review and his general misunderstanding of what a peer review is.

Wolter also continuously states that the history we know it is wrong and scientists and researchers who are trained in their given fields are wrong. I agree there is nothing wrong with his questing but his trying to establish himself as an expert in linguistics and archeology is counter-productive. He tells people to mistrust the experts and trust him but offers no real reason that we should trust him over others. This in my mind is inherently dishonest and manipulative. When asked about it his response is that he does real science and has testified in a court of law and has read books on the subjects.

Reply

ALL SW NEEDS TO DO IS OPINE ON ISAAC NEWTON!!!!

4/14/2014 04:04:06 am

Robert Hooke, like GOD, once ruled our universe grandly!
Not that peer review is a bad thing, it actually limits the
number of obvious hoaxes like Piltdown Man as it does
add to the lag time between bright ideas + brilliant books.
I think that Isaac Newton visited Leeds in his schoolboy days.
Or at least, Craven or Langcliffe or Giggleswick! i said i am
being out on a limb and rather maverick in this, but there are
old books in the 1800s who talked about his travels. Lincoln
is not Yorkshire, Grantham is much closer to York or Boston!

Newton's Principia (by J.A.D)

4/14/2014 03:57:10 am

I can opine if it was the turmoil of 1675 in the streets during
the reign of Charles II or the eagle-eyed way Robert Hooke
ruled the universe from Oxford that had a Cambridge resident
most reluctant to put his ideas before a peer review. I see the
actions of Isaac Newton as having a connection to the politics
and theology of his age, he did hold back from publication by
a clear and clean decade, he might have had his fluxion ideas
already in his head when coming back from upcountry after
the fire and the plague. SW seems to be in command of his
own fate, but H2 can be slapdash. GoTo Pg 29, in the pdf!!!
if only one can ever prove that Isaac Newton ever vacation'd
at Langcliffe Hall, i'd be in bliss because an oral history, a
folklore would have academic back-up! it would be cool if both
Grantham & the countryside around Leeds equally contributed
to the esoteric birth of modern physics! Call me a maverick, yes!

Genius level science hath wonderous things, Hooke's
brilliance is quite a lead-in to WHY poor Sir Isaac lit
into poor Herr Liebniz so badly and totally, the dispute
about LIGHT + JOHN MILTON's Genesis precedes the
(((drumrolls))) Great Calculus Feud of the early 1700s.
Newton was total bad form but reflective of the paranoia
about France's LOUIS 14th!!!! Science in the late 1600s
wore a yoke labeled nationalism & politics. I am not on
a tangent, and even though the odds are rather high SW's
I.Q points are less than those of Sir Isaac's or even those
of Robert Hooke's or even Herr Leibniz, lets all be polite!!!!

Reply

SW is like a Haughty Courtier of YesterYear...

4/14/2014 04:33:34 am

He has the ease & grace of an Elizabethan courtier,
and a knowledge of science and geology equal to that
of John Dee or Robert Boyle. Needless to say, his bold
ideas half explain why Roanoke came into being, or even
Jamestown. It was way cool of Elizabeth II to visit that lil
ole Virginia Towne so recently, at its happy 400 year mark!

Reply

Martin R

4/15/2014 08:02:26 am

And, as an offshoot of this conversation, when we speak of how to present an hour of real science that is informative, entertaining and has a likeable host, see Cosmos! It's fabulous.

Reply

B L

4/14/2014 04:36:23 am

Jason, i would be very interested in reading more about your correspondence with Nielsen regarding the KRS. Maybe sometime when things slow down you would be willing to publish more about this if you are at liberty to do so.

There isn't much to say. For the most part he wanted to talk with me about the KRS, most of which is material he published on his website. He told me about areas on AU where he felt Wolter was abusing the facts, and he provided some details about their falling out, including some private information regarding the publication of their book that I can't share but was related to the actual production of the book, not its content.

Reply

B L

4/14/2014 05:14:09 am

Jason, this particular thread might not be the place for this, but....I am particularly interested in your impressions of Nielsen's personal opinions about the KRS. I have read all of what Nielsen has made public on his website, and I find it to be very believable. However, I often run across information new to me when reading your blog that further fashions my opinion. In the past you have claimed disinterest in the KRS, but I would still be highly interested in reading anything you could add to this topic.

JJ

4/14/2014 09:25:08 am

here is the best example of he said, he said.. I am surprised you bring that up.. it shows negative assertion to something you leave hanging in the air.

I didn't bring it up, JJ. I answered a question. The reason I can't share the information isn't that it's nefarious but because it involves an ongoing dispute the two are having that I promised I wouldn't discuss in public since it isn't my business. You're welcome to ask Nielsen yourself, and I'm sure he'll tell you all about it.

NEWTON took his own sweet tyme to put his self under a peer review process...

4/14/2014 04:42:54 am

I am giving SW about a decade to write something about his
ideas again, as he goes the total distance, I am thinking the
fast pace of his current series lets him blog & opine at infrequent intervals... it may take the shock of a cancellation for him to be
more in line with academia's current day standards and not pop
culture in any way, shape or form! i am cutting him some slack.
i do agree with Jason on this precise & rarefied procedure point!

"No, they didn't. As I understand it--and I am not a professional geologist--geologists often sign off on one another's reports, and this occurred with Wolter's concrete stability work. This has not, so far as Wolter has ever revealed, occurred with his fringe history work."

Reply

Matt Mc

4/14/2014 04:54:54 am

My guess is this up coming season 3 will be the last one as most shows like AU only last 3 seasons. Maybe a possible 4th season if the 3rd seasons ratings are really good but I don't see it going longer than that.

Reply

J.A.D

4/14/2014 05:07:41 am

i indeed agree...
tis his 15 min
of pure fame!!!

I just watched the Amazing Race...

4/14/2014 05:06:05 am

Sunday's episode had teams realizing how to number things
in a manner like the ancient Romans as Keats came up as a
classical name*drop! Scott Wolter would be the guy i'd ask
questions of concerning samples of Roman concrete that is
more contemporary to Octavius or Nero, but not the Collosseum,
even though I'd take all Sulla or Tully questions elsewhere... to
a different expert. I'd even assume Jason does know more about
Marcus Tullius Cicero than does Scott Wolter but both men are
academically equa-distant to Suetonius in more ways than one. Jason C. very likely knows more about Plutarch than SW or I do!

Reply

plutarch is often very accurate, but with suetonius, the "divvil" is in the fine & small details, he needs a plutarch quote often...

4/14/2014 05:16:38 am

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suetonius-augustus.asp (j.a.d)

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/14/2014 06:00:01 am

Anyone who is genuinely interested in understanding Scott Wolter's work on the Kensington Rune Stone is encouraged to READ the book -- "The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence." (2006, Lake Superior Agate publishing) …

In its 574 pages -- including numerous photos, charts and diagrams and an extensive bibliography and several appendices -- Wolter's studies are clearly and VERY well documented for any interested person to review ...

Reply

Matt Mc

4/14/2014 06:10:06 am

Read the book. I however and a layman. I however am more curious as to what other geologist think about his conclusions and methodology. I am sure there is good science in there, it seems like it in reading but than again it could just be a bunch of mumbo jumbo like Richard Hoaglands mathematics.

And. .............

Posting a link to Wolters book still does not answer the question why does Wolter not submit his work to peer review and why does he have a gross misunderstanding of the peer review process, which is the question posed many times and the question that this blog entry addresses.

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/14/2014 06:32:18 am

MANY professional peer-reviewed journals receive far many more submitted articles than they can print … So the editor(s) pick and choose (yes, sometimes based upon their own views already firmly held) …

But … Observed weathering of freshly exposed rock surfaces isn't a controversial thing … And especially with the boom in sale and theft and forgery of antiquities, the meticulous mineralogical chemical geological examination of carved inscriptions is not a NEW thing ...

Matt Mc

4/14/2014 06:42:32 am

Still does not address Wolters reluctance and his misunderstanding.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/14/2014 06:52:52 am

Matt --

I'm not Scott Wolters' agent or spokesperson … So I can't presume to answer your questions FOR him …

So ... feel FREE to contact him yourself, by e-mail would likely be the best route … Look him up … He has got his contact info listed on the "net" …

But please understand that he DOES work for a living, and time is $$$ … So he may or may not respond ...

Matt Mc

4/14/2014 06:58:12 am

I am just trying to stay on topic, not stray off and have it led in random directions.

Not having an answer is okay. Wolter has made his position very clear on his blog. He wants nothing to do with Peer review and that is his choice. He also has shown that he misunderstands what the peer review process is, again that is fine.

I am just trying to keep you to talking about the facts based on the what was presented in Jasons original blog. You discussion of the fact as it presents to the subject at hand, something you say we should be doing more often.

Reply

Only Me

4/14/2014 08:05:47 am

Admirable effort, Matt. It seems that keeping Phil on-track with a topic he put forward is as challenging as making a rope stand up on its end!

Reply

Matt Mc

4/14/2014 08:17:01 am

Not really all it takes is direct questions and not playing into his obstruction by distraction techniques.

I recommend everyone do it.

Rev. phil Gotsch

4/14/2014 08:57:44 am

Matt --

I do "get it" that "blogs" like this one are not (necessarily) ABOUT seeking and gaining significant understanding, but more so about snark and posturing and one-ups-person-ship ...

Reply

Matt Mc

4/14/2014 09:20:23 am

I KNOW how much you ENJOY the SNARK...

lighten up....... Its ALL about DISTRACTION

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/14/2014 02:28:39 pm

"Snark" IS distracting ...

Matt Mc

4/15/2014 12:36:16 am

and I believe that is the reason you post here. Snark and distractions.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/14/2014 08:51:36 am

THE ongoing relentless #1 topic of these particular internet chat room blog spots is: the JOY of blasting and misrepresenting Scott Wolter -- his work, his character, his expertise …

I do "get" that ...

Reply

Matt Mc

4/14/2014 09:13:11 am

How was this blog post misrepresenting Scott Wolter. He made it very clear on his blog how he feels about Peer Review. It is also obvious he does not have a true understanding of what peer review is. I have no idea why he fails to understand it. He is also the one making the claim that he is more qualified do research because he does "real science" and believes that academia and other working professionals are out to get him.

These are his words, words he has repeated in print, on his blog, on television and on radio and he has been very clear about what he is saying.

That he made these claims are fact, know we could speculate all day as to his rational. I do know that these facts for me make me doubt his ability to rationally and objectively address the topics he does but that is just my opinion and others might and do feel differently. I and other have a right to state our opinions as you do yours.

My goal was only to keep your discussion on the subject of Wolters statements on his blog and not a discussion of examples of how Peer Review works or does not. That would only be relevant to the blog post is because as Scott's friend you had some insight into why he rejects peer review and generally misunderstands what it is, which is possible.

Bottom line is Wolter has made these statements and has made it clear in multiple forms of media that he stands behind these statements. So why is it wrong for people to discuss the statements he made, he choose to be a public figure and he choose to bring the subject up in public, so it is fair game. You might not like it, I can understand but this whole blog post would not have even been made if Wolter choose not to post it on his blog.

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/14/2014 10:43:23 am

The entire process of "peer review" in the scientific community (which is not limited to peer-reviewed journals, BTW) and how it works in the Real World and how well it works certainly IS relevant to a discussion of "peer review" of Scott Wolter's work on the KRS ...

Again, you prefer not to deal with the fact that peer review has a specific meaning.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/14/2014 12:48:44 pm

Jason --

LOL … Indeed "peer review" is NOT the SAME thing as "snark"

Heidi

4/14/2014 12:52:37 pm

I confess my crime. I just uploaded and shared my senior thesis paper on academia.edu on the Integration of Behavioral Modification Techniques with Spa Wellness Models. If I am robbed, it is my own fault. I WILL read the nature collection of articles on Peer Review Jason.

Heidi

4/14/2014 12:31:37 pm

Here is an independent attempt to create an alternative publishing process that reverses the current peer review process and conducts peer review AFTER publication. https://www.academia.edu/hiring/mission

Reply

Walt

4/14/2014 11:11:10 pm

Awesome! It won't get much support from the elitist crowd here, but it's exactly what should happen. Scientists should publish on their own blogs, or elsewhere, for everyone to read.

Publishing in private journals and charging thousands of dollars to read it should've died in the last century if finding the truth is really the goal.

Reply

Matt Mc

4/15/2014 12:33:47 am

I agree with publishing the findings on your own blog, I think transparency is always the way to go.

By self publishing however you still lack a true review process. Some combination of the two however would be the way to go.

Reply

Walt

4/15/2014 12:50:07 am

No doubt not having a single body to determine what's bunk and what isn't, or even what gets published and what doesn't, would result in more confusing research and even more bunk for the believers to believe in. I'm fine with that, but scientists most likely believe information should be filtered before it reaches the masses, just like some people believe AU shouldn't be on the air because some of the masses believe it unconditionally.

Self-publish is essentially what Scott Wolter has done, but none of his peers has self-published a response. I believe the reports about why the KRS is deemed a hoax are freely available, but no one has addressed his supposed dating of it.

Matt Mc

4/15/2014 01:04:37 am

I personally think that beyond his first study of the KRS which Wolter states was work for hire. He realized that he could profit from it which has led us to where we are today.

I still have not come to a conclusion myself if he really believes in what he says or whether he is just playing a game to promote himself in order to make more money. While I am not a scientist by any means of the word I think a lot of them feel the same way I do and are staying away from the subject he presents much like they stay away from Graham Hancock or Richard Hoagland.

I think if he and others like him just put the findings and research methods out there and say here is what we have found and here are our conclusions based only on the findings without all the other supposition and well in Wolter's case the Templar theories it would be better received and maybe perhaps some on else will take it a but more seriously. I think a lot of the problem with fringe theories whether it be UFO's, Cryptids, or ancient history is that the message turns people away. I have used RIVER MONSTERS exploration into the Loch Ness monster in the past as one I thought was well handled and I just watched a great interesting doc last weekend on the first live sighting of the Giant Squid. The former was interesting and used real science to help explain from a marine biologist stance what could of caused the myth of a lake monster, the later was a very interesting documentation of scientists quest to further research something that once was a myth but through real research proved it was real.

So I think if we can somehow convince people like Wolter and others to get away from the sensationalism and stick to the research perhaps people will take the subjects more seriously.

Walt

4/15/2014 01:29:32 am

I think after his initial KRS work, which academics essentially ridiculed, he just started believing in everything academics ridiculed. I don't think it's about money. It could be about fame. But I really think it's about his manhood. They ridiculed his professional geological work, so he's now trying to prove their beliefs are incorrect.

Self-publishing because you believe the current system of peer review is flawed would be noble. But saying you're self-publishing because the process is flawed when you're actually doing so because your work isn't worthy of publication is something else.

I think scientists are avoiding his dating of buried carved stone objects because there's insufficient data to reach a conclusion. I'm not a scientist either, but it seems to me if you're going to date an object based on the manner in which certain crud has or hasn't accumulated, you'd have to analyze hundreds of objects with a known burial date over many years.

Matt Mc

4/15/2014 01:57:21 am

I would like to say I believe that Wolter is not doing it for money and I have gone back and forth so many times. He however is following a well established pattern of being a fringe historian right down to complaining about IMBD comments. So while it might be an ego thing I cannot rule out that he has studied other fringe historians and simple doing the successful things they did. This really is not about his book sales or TV appearances but rather the good money that comes from doing conferences.

Steve StC

4/17/2014 10:52:02 am

Really Matt?

If SW is doing it for the money, then how much money is he making.

I've seen this line of attack come up here again and again by people totally ignorant of how much, or rather how little money can be made by publishing books via Amazon and doing shows like AU. You having been in the business might be less ignorant than others on this, so please enlighten us.

If SW is doing this for the money as you have suggested, and getting "rich" off it it as others have suggested, then exactly how lucrative is this kind of work?

If you aren't making money as a fringe historian, you're doing it wrong. Small-press and self-published books don't make much, it's true, but Jim Marrs gets good money publishing with HarperCollins. Giorgio Tsoukalos gets between $7,500 and $10,000 per speaking engagement, according to his booking agent. Do that just once a month and you've got a good income even before the TV payments, the merchandising, etc.

Matt Mc

4/18/2014 12:26:33 am

Steve, you forget I have worked on shows like Wolter's, sure his pay for a show like AU is not that same as the one would get for a daily or weekly program but it is not something to laugh at. His salary would be equal to what many many people around this country use to support a household ( when I work on a show like AU I would get around $45k for editing 13 shows, and around $60 if that included color correction and graphics,when I was a camera man I made about $40k when I traveled). So while it might not be hundreds of thousands of dollars it is substantial enough, and when you include the getting to travel around the states and Europe, the free clothing and backpacks, per diem or free meals and at least one free family vacation that is nothing to laugh about. Plus when you add exposure and free promotion of both his books and himself it works out to be a pretty good deal. Now when you add on the increased book sales (because lets face it without the TV show his book most likely would barely sell) which still may not amount to too much but it is something and his personal experiences which would be at min a thousand be day plus food and hotel expenses it is a pretty good way to supplement an income.

So do I think this is making Wolter a millionaire, no not at all. But it is a nice finical boost and a great way to get some free travel and meet interesting people. Plus the added bonus of being able to travel to spots that can provide further research for future books. Not a bad deal in my mind.

Now is this the reason why Wolter does all this, like I said before I am on the fence about it. I just am not sure and I do not think I will ever be. I however cannot rule out the possibility that Wolter likes the extra attention, the extra money, the free travel and that is a driving factor behind him doing it. I do think he is a very smart man and I am sure he weighed all these options out before making his decision to do the TV show.

Gunn

4/15/2014 05:41:04 am

Wolter didn't date the KRS. The KRS dates itself, to 1362.

Wolter gave his opinion that the KRS was at least a certain age...putting its "manufacture" before the immigrant wave of the late 1800's, which is a very significant point.

Since Jason has supplied at least a partial, possible rendering of Wolter's version of peer review (the list of dignitaries), maybe the worst skeptics here can follow that lead instead of harping on and on about Wolter presenting evidence of peer review, and poor ole Rev. Phil doing the same.

Hopefully, Jason will be able to follow through and contact some of Wolter's listed peer reviewers--however defined--and show everyone here exactly what the nature of the apparent past peer reviews were, and more exactly if the reviews can possibly be considered "adequate."

Reply

RLewis

4/15/2014 06:26:22 am

With all due respect to Jason, his measure of "adequacy" is irrelevant. Peer is review is only one, very simple, yet very specific process. Anything else is simply self-promotion.

The current peer review process has served us quite well and has made significant contributions to the entirety of human knowledge.

Reply

Walt

4/15/2014 11:07:31 am

I have a tough time keeping the various bogus artifacts straight. I think my description of his KRS work was really his BCS work.

I just don't care who moved where and when. It's interesting to know if it can be known using science, but isn't any more interesting to me than how coywolves have spread.

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/16/2014 10:18:18 am

BINGO … !!!

Based upon his VERY meticulous examination of the weathering of minerals in the incised runes on the KRS, as compared to weathering of minerals in incised letters of know age (on tombstones), Scott Wolter concluded that the stone COULDN'T have been faked by Olof Ohman, but had to have been carved at least fifty to two hundred years earlier ...

Even if an article goes through peer review and uses proper techniques, it does not mean it is factual or true. Many journals and in the whole biased, and even if they use a peer review process, the articles all reflect the bias of the journal. For example, there is a journal called "Tobacco Control," and I know for a fact that the articles in that journal - all peer reviewed - reflect only one stance and that is the stance of anti-tobacco advocates.

I would guess that in History, a journal called "Templar Conspiracies" or something like that would reflect a certain world view no matter how rigorous a "peer review" process one uses

Exactly, John Dunham. Except that I would call the journal "Templar Coincidences." "Conspiracies" seems to reflect negative connotations...unless that would be the purpose of the journal.

Coincidences, indeed. There seems to be an odd coincidence of like aged, triangulated stoneholes in medieval Scandinavian Europe, in proximity with Templars, and also in medieval Scandinavian America...which possibly indicates Templar activity here in medieval America, according to Wolter's "Hooked X" book.

But the stoneholes on each side of the pond aren't the result of a conspiracy, unless there was a coincidental conspiracy to keep the stoneholes mysterious and uncertain, then, as seems to be the case in academia here today.

The stoneholes still appear to be mysterious, alright, even though their purpose was known back then, and their purposes here are now known, too: Land up-taking and identification, primarily--like in Europe; but here in America, in conjunction with mapping, too.

Blaming dozens of unblasted stoneholes on extremely forgetful immigrants takes care of the mystery for the time being, for academia, as decreed by the dumb "peer review article" (by Tom Trow) which needs to be reviewed and updated to reflect reality. I'm referring to the source Jason referred to over a year ago.

Hopefully, he and others here have gained an updated, realistic approach to these mysterious stoneholes by now, in part because of my repeated harping--instead of blandly attributing them to forgetful immigrants. To me, that is low-brow, possibly even prejudiced. Trow doesn't sound very Scandinavian...neither does Colavito.

The aged, hand-chiseled stoneholes must be explained, not explained away. A new, narrowly-defined high-brow peer review is in order!

From Tom Trow: "The mystery of the small holes in many large
rocks left on the landscape can be easily ex-
plained: the ones we find today are simply those
that were left unblasted, either forgotten or in-
tentionally passed over. “They didn’t get around
to blasting those,” as Mattson said. The so-called
mooring stones are, in fact, recent historic arti-
facts, no older than the beginning of nineteenth-
century farming in the region.
For a full century the Kensington Runestone
has been the object of both staunch pride and
firm disbelief and a topic of continuing scholar-
ly commentary. Removing the mooring stones
from the shrinking list of reasons to believe in
the runestone still leaves the carved rock itself
at the center of 100 years of controversy."

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/16/2014 10:31:48 am

Sure …

Those early settler-farmers had so much extra time on their hands, so little to do during the day, they fanned out across the countryside in large groups, drilling holes in countless boulders just for fun …

uh huh

Gunn

4/16/2014 10:45:09 am

A few weeks ago, I wondered why the name Tom Trow popped into my mind. Now I remember why.

This is what people like your friend, Scott Wolter, are being faced with here in Minnesota. Couple that with the views of the State Archaeologist here about POSITIVELY no pre-1600's European contact, and we see the word HIDEBOUND coming into view. Great word; I looked it up and it fits most of the crowd here PERFECTLY! Ha! Ha! Finally having some fun.... The Snarksters won't be far behind.

Gunn

4/16/2014 10:38:25 am

http://mnarchsociety.org/newsletters/MAS.Winter2014.Lite.pdf

November, December 2013
Letter from the President
The Minnesota Archaeological Society’s Board of Directors met at Ft. Snelling on November 12, 2013, and December 3,
1213 at 7:00 p.m. Both meetings sustained attendance to constitute a quorum. Some new and significant business came before
each meeting.
New Opportunity
Twin Cities Public Television Partnership Manager Tom Trow, who is executive producer at TPT and an archaeologist,
attended the November meeting to discuss opportunities and ideas and to collect input toward proposed plans to produce
a documentary for TPT on “Scientific Minnesota Archaeology: What We Know and How We Know It.” The documentary
would focus on discussions addressing certain pop-archaeology, and/or alternative history theories. The television show
“American Unearthed” was cited as a prime example of the problem of fantastical theories of the past. He thinks there is a
place for a rebuttal against this trend–and explanation of how archaeology actually works.
Extensive discussion followed, citing many examples of fringe archaeology
, the Kensington Stone being the most prominent.
Although it was noted that nothing is likely to change the minds of the “true believers,” there may be an audience of younger
people who do not have set opinions to whom we could demonstrate how critical thinking works

Actually, I was showing how by the professionals' definition peer review might look...how it DOES look. Tom Trow is an archaeologist, commenting on stoneholes. Is this like Wolter commenting on archaeology?

Gunn

4/16/2014 11:10:49 am

I think we may both see a Villain.

Reply

Charlie Devine

4/19/2014 04:37:50 am

The entire Hooked X narrative and its presence on NA "runestones" is predicated on a premise that can never be proven: that there existed/exists a secret bloodline of Jesus Christ. Here Wolter is a scholar of history creating as the foundation of his theory a premise that cannot be proven. Why would anyone take this as more then imaginative speculation? Why would any peer review process result in publication? The Gnostic Christian writings make for fascinating reading. And indeed there is within the Gnostic tradition an acceptance of a close relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalena. But where could we ever find proof of a secret bloodline, examples from history of descendents of Jesus, his great grandchildren? The only problem here is that undue influence on the public mind is wielded by folks who woefully lack an ability to educate the American public. Give me one good teacher who can teach his/ her students how to use the discriminating power of their own intellect to see through unsubstantial fluff when it is staring them in the face.
Alexis de Tocqueville observed that in a mass democracy like America, with a democratic marketplace of ideas, that we might expect the lowest common denominator to rise to the top. That is the problem as I see it. I'm not worried about my own powers of discrimination. I am saddened by the undue influence of garbage. About the only good thing it does is let people think outside the box, which is always a good thing. Someone told me recently that the burden of proof is on those who doubt to prove a secret bloodline of Jesus does not exist. You see, even "burden of proof" is not understood by the gullible.

For History's sake, it saddens me to see the hooked X runic character being sullied by the nonsense of a proposed Jesus bloodline. The hooked X, properly understood in its historical context, has nothing to do with a Jesus bloodline. In my opinion, the two are being conflated without proof, diminishing the image of the hooked X. Whereas I see the historical hooked X properly conflated by Wolter with the various American runestones, as authentically carved in a medieval setting, there is nothing I've seen, historically to tie Templars or the hooked X in with a proposed Jesus bloodline. This is the rub.

This gets to the heart of the problem Wolter is facing with the hooked X, which he cannot and should not own. He is facing the same problem with the Kensington Runestone, which he cannot and should not "own," either. Even though he got involved with the very authentic KRS (my opinion), he's conflating it and the hooked X's with a sub-par and toxic subject. Why he isn't worried about doing this, I don't know, but at least he's no longer an atheist, apparently. Does this make what he's doing any better? No, and Rev. Phil, you have your hands full. Scott needs Christian friends who have their heads screwed on right! This hidebound view by Wolter about a Jesus bloodline mixed in with Templars and hooked X's has got to go, right???

Anyone can pick up a Bible and see that a proposed carnal Jesus bloodline is a rather wicked proposition that serves to pervert the concept of a spiritual and physical virgin birth. Jesus is God. God, as Jesus, didn't have intercourse with a human. And just what is Easter all about, anyway? Wolter is trying to create both spiritual and historical perversions, in my opinion. Why, I don't know, but he's not doing God, the Templars, the hooked X, the KRS (and stoneholes, either, for that matter) any favors, in my view...but there's always hope. Anyway, Rev. Phil, you've got you work cut out for you! Maybe we'll all get to see a transformation on TV...a hiccup in his future plans.

I'm coming late to this thread and there may be no-one reading, but I had to make a comment re Scott Wolter, peer review and the dating of carvings in stone. It seems to me unimportant whether Scott has "submitted" or refused to submit anything for peer review. I've been in touch with over a dozen academic geologists about the very concept of dating carvings in stone by any methodology. Not one of them believes there is enough merit to the idea to even bother looking into it. Peer review takes time and effort. One professor told me that if there were any potential for dating stone carvings that doctoral students would be coming out of the woodwork wanting to do dissertations on it. But not one has. The whole notion doesn't even rise to the level of meriting peer review.

Wolter's method is essentially comparative weathering, and because he isn't an archaeologist he seems to think he's the first to ever use weathering or erosion to determine the relative age of an inscription. Even he admits that it doesn't provide absolute dates, which he obtains by comparing his relative dating to fringe history literature.

Reply

Lynn Brant

4/21/2014 02:08:50 am

Isn't it true that in archaeology, relative weathering might be worthy of note when relative might mean time spans greater than the two centuries Wolter claims to have the KRS pegged to? The geologists I've talked to say that in a stone that hard, the changes over much more time that that are still so minimal and so subject to many variables, that there are no possible conclusions to be drawn.

Relative dating can only tell you whether something is older or younger than something else, but in the case of the KRS, Wolter claims that he has determined that the weathering gives an absolute (though wide) date range. In the Bat Creek Stone case, he doesn't pretend this and simply dates it based on correlating a relative date (older than 1960) obtained through geology with absolute dates gained through fringe history--the alleged date of the Hebrew used on the stone--and implying geology gave him the answer. For the KRS, there are so many local factors that go into determining weathering that it is very difficult to claim a specific date range without mountains of data and comparison samples of known dates.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/21/2014 10:28:52 am

Scott Wolter concluded that the inscription on the Kensington Rune Stone could NOT have been done by the discoverer, Olof Ohman, but was almost certainly done at least fifty to two hundred years prior to discovery …

That conclusion was based in part on close examination of inscribed stones of KNOWN age, i.e., tombstones ...

Rev. Phil Gotsch

4/21/2014 10:25:04 am

Attempting to verify or discount the antiquity of an inscription on an artifact is not uncommon … See, e.g., the recent discovery of an ossuary in Israel reputed to be that of "James, the brother of Jesus" ...

Reply

Lynn Brant

4/25/2014 08:06:29 am

It is not possible to draw any scientific conclusions about how long any weathering on stone took to occur. Of course archeologists have long drawn conclusions about the age of inscriptions, but not from weathering. Instead from archeological context, of which the KRS has precisely zero.

Leave a Reply.

Author

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.